Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 July, 2022
CRM-M-24989-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
283
CRM-M-24989-2022
Decided on : 27.07.2022
Shiv Kumar and another
. . . Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jatin Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR No. 110 dated 24.04.2020 under Sections 323, 325, 34 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station Furrukh Nagar,
District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings
arising on the basis of the compromise.
On 01.06.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the
following order:-
"This is a petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 110 dated
24.04.2020 under Sections 323, 325, 34 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at
Police Station Furrukh Nagar, District Gurugram
(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings
arising on the basis of the compromise.
Notice of motion for 27.07.2022.
1 of 6
On asking of the Court, Mr. Praveen
Bhadu, AAG, Haryana appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr.
Jatin Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No. 2.
The parties are directed to appear before
the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for recording
their statements qua compromise within a period
of six weeks.
The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court is
directed to submit a report on or before the next
date of hearing containing the following
information:-
1. Number of persons arrayed as accused.
2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender?
3. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary
and without any coercion or undue influence?
4. Whether the accused persons are involved in
any other FIR or not?
5. The trial Court is also directed to record the
statement of the Investigating Officer as to how
many victims/complainants are there in the FIR. "
In pursuance of the said order, a report has been submitted
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pataudi to the Registrar General of
this Court. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"In pursuance to which, complainant
Mahabir Singh as well as accused persons namely
Shiv Kumar and Geeta Devi appeared before the
Court. The nature and consequence of the
statement being recorded by both the parties was
2 of 6
explained to them and after being satisfied that
the statements were being made voluntarily,
statements of the concerned parties were
recorded. Statement of complainant Mahabir
Singh as well as accused Shiv Kumar and Geeta
Devi was recorded with regard to their
compromise. Photocopies of Adhar card of
complainant Mahabir Singh as well as of the
accused persons Shiv Kumar and Geeta Devi have
also been placed on record. Complainant
Mahabir Singh stated on oath that a compromise
has been effected between him and accused
persons. Similarly accused persons also stated
that they have compromised the case with the
complainant and FIR may kindly be quashed.
To verify involvement of other persons,
statement of IO/LHC Rakhi (belt no. 544) of
Police Post. Haily mandi, Police Station Pataudi.
Gurugram was recorded She stated in her
statement that in the present FIR No. 110 dated
24.04.2022, à complaint was registered against
two accused persons Shiv Kumar and Geeta Devi
are accused in this case and challan has been
filed against them only.
In view of the statements of the interested
parties, the undersigned is of view that they have
compromised the matter amongst them without
any fear, coercion or inducement and that the
compromise has been voluntarily arrived at
between them.
Statements of the interested parties in
original is enclosed herewith. Photocopies of
Aadhar card of complainant Mahabir Singh as
3 of 6
well as of the accused Shiv Kumar and Geeta
Devi have also been placed on record and
statement of 10/L/HC Rakhi (belt No. 544) of
Police-Post Haily Mandi, Police Station Pataudi,
Guguram) in original is enclosed herewith.
Submitted please."
A perusal of the above report would show that it has been
stated that the statements of the complainant as well as the petitioners
have been recorded in the case and they have stated that the matter has
been compromised and they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed.
It is further stated that the statement of the complainant has been made
voluntarily without any fear, coercion or pressure.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
none of the petitioners were declared proclaimed offender in the present
case and are not involved in any other case.
Learned counsel for the State, as per instructions, has stated
that the abovesaid facts are correct.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has again reiterated
that the matter has been settled and the said compromise is in the interest
of all the persons and would help in bringing out peace and amity between
the two parties.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the file. After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court
as well reply submitted on behalf of the State, this Court finds that the
matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the
4 of 6
complainant and the present FIR having been compromised deserves to be
quashed. Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to
live in peace, this Court feels that in order to secure the ends of justice, the
criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.
As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder
Singh and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it
is held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the
compounding of non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
where the High Court is of the opinion that the same is required to prevent
the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also observed
that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process
of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal
proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant
portion of para 57 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX"
5 of 6
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition
is allowed and FIR No. 110 dated 24.04.2020 under Sections 323, 325,
34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at Police Station
Furrukh Nagar, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent
proceedings arising on the basis of the compromise, are ordered to be
quashed, qua the petitioners.
(VIKAS BAHL)
27.07.2022 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
